Cheatham County Generation Site EIS Scoping Report
Appendix C Summary of Scoping Comments
Tennessee Valley Authority
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE CHEATHAM COUNTY GENERATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS), KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT DRAFT EIS, AND PUMPED HYDRO PROGRAMMATIC EIS___001 CONSERVATION GROUPS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE CHEATHAM COUNTY GENERATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS), KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT DRAFT EIS, AND PUMPED HYDRO PROGRAMMATIC EIS___002 CONSERVATION GROUPS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE CHEATHAM COUNTY GENERATION SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS), KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT DRAFT EIS, AND PUMPED HYDRO PROGRAMMATIC EIS___003
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), TVA has published five significant proposals for public comment. For all five highly technical proposals, TVA has established five deadlines within a two-week window. To ensure that TVA satisfies NEPA’s mandate to provide a “springboard for public comment,”1 on behalf of Appalachian Voices, Sierra Club, Tennessee Chapter Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively, “Conservation Groups”), the Southern Environmental Law Center requests that TVA extend the public comment deadlines by thirty (30) days for the Cheatham County Generation Site Environmental Impact Statement (from June 27 to July 27), Kingston Draft Environmental Impact Statement (July 3 to August 2), and Pumped Hydro Storage Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (from July 5 to August 4). 1 Robertson v. Metthow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)
Between May 12 and May 25, TVA requested comments on a three new gas plants, two new gas pipelines, numerous solar and storage facilities, multiple pumped hydro storage projects, and the entirety of its energy resource planning and selection process: • On May 12, TVA published a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) requesting comments on the scope of environmental review for a new 900 MW gas-fired power plant and 400 MW battery storage unit in Cheatham County. Comments are due June 27.2 • Also on May 12, TVA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for its proposal to replace the retiring Kingston coal plant with two new gasfired power plants. TVA set a July 3 deadline for comments.3 • On May 19, TVA published a Notice of Intent requesting comments on a programmatic environmental impact statement for solar and storage. TVA set a June 20 comment deadline.4 • Also on May 19, TVA published a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) requesting comments on the scope of its upcoming Integrated Resource Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. TVA set a July 3 comment deadline.5 • On May 25, TVA published another Notice of Intent, requesting comments for Pumped Storage Hydro Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. TVA set a July 5 comment deadline.6 negative Trey Bussey
6/21/2023
First, the five overlapping comment periods undermine public comment. “NEPA’s public comment procedures are at the heart of the NEPA review process.”7 NEPA “requires not merely public notice, but public participation in the evaluation of the environmental consequences of a major federal action.”8 By requiring comments on every one of these major, interrelated proposals to be filed at the same time, TVA is critically undermining the opportunity for public engagement on each of them. The five energy proposals present significant questions about TVA’s energy future. The decisions are of critical importance for the roughly 10 million people who are served by TVA and whose rates pay for TVA’s capital expenses and fuel costs. The proposals are all fundamentally related within TVA’s energy operations: the IRP is intended to plan for the Valley’s energy needs, while gas, solar, and storage are potentially competing resources that TVA may consider to fulfill those needs. A thorough and searching analysis, supported by meaningful public participation, is vital for the people and places throughout the Tennessee Valley who will bear the consequences of TVA’s actions for decades to come. 2) https://www.tva.com/environment/environmental-stewardship/environmentalreviews/nepa-detail/cheatham-county-generation-site. 3 https://www.tva.com/environment/environmental- stewardship/environmentalreviews/nepa-detail/kingston-fossil-plant-retirement. 4 https://www.tva.com/environment/environmental-stewardship/environmentalreviews/nepa-detail/tva-solar-and-battery- programmatic-environmental-impact-statement. 5 https://www.tva.com/environment/environmental-stewardship/integrated-resource-plan. 6 https://www.tva.com/environment/environmental- stewardship/environmentalreviews/nepa-detail/pumped-storage-hydro-programmatic-environmental-i 7 California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 771 (9th Cir. 1982). 8 Id Second, TVA should extend the comment deadlines for the Kingston gas plants and pipeline, the Cheatham County gas plant and pipeline, and the pumped hydro storage facilities because TVA must update its outdated integrated resource plan before making billions of dollars of investments in new assets. The 2019 IRP is outdated and no longer provides meaningful guidance on TVA’s decisions. The 2019 IRP does not reflect TVA’s own decarbonization goals, much less TVA’s obligations to comply with the Biden Administration’s policy of achieving a “carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035.”9 The IRP did not account for the Inflation Reduction Act, which makes billions of federal dollars available for clean energy projects to TVA and TVA’s local power companies.10 The IRP did not plan for carbon mitigation of TVA’s fossil fuel assets. In comments on the TVA’s proposed Cumberland gas plant and pipeline, EPA demanded that TVA provide a detailed discussion of how TVA would mitigate carbon emissions from a new plant.11 TVA refused.12 But EPA has since published a draft rule proposing new mitigation measures for coal and gas plants.13 While the rule is not yet finalized, a pending EPA rule represents foreseeable environmental compliance costs that the 2019 IRP does not address. By proceeding with projects in an environmental and economic scenario that is not reflected in the 2019 IRP, TVA is demanding that the public conduct its own leastcost planning and selection analysis for TVA’s new projects. TVA’s own IRP process takes many months, yet TVA asks the public to do the same thing in roughly 45 days for four different projects. TVA should not make a decision at all about Kingston, Cheatham, and pumped hydro storage until it has conducted a new IRP to assess whether those proposals—after accounting for the IRA, federal decarbonization targets, and potential carbon mitigation—can credibly contribute to a portfolio that achieves the lowest system cost. If TVA does proceed based on its outdated 2019 IRP, 9 Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619, 7624 (Feb. 1, 2021). 10 Caroline Eggers, The First U.S. Climate Bill Will Make Renewable Energy Easier, and Cheaper, for TVA, WPLN (Aug. 8, 2022), https://wpln.org/post/the-first-u-s-climate-bill-willmake-renewable-energy-easier- and-cheaper-for-tva/. 11 TVA, Cumberland Fossil Plant Retirement, Final EIS, Appendix P (Dec. 2022). 12 Id. 13 EPA, New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating U nits; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 33240 (May 23, 2023), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/23/2023-10141/newsource-performance-standards-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-modified- andreconstructed.
6/21/2023
negative
Trey
Bussey
6/21/2023
negative
Trey
Bussey
Page 12 of 133
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker